Madras High Court
Tvl. Pioneer Cashew Enterprises vs The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate ... on 14 August, 2024
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar, C. Saravanan
W.P.No.17068 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.08.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
W.P.No.17068 of 2016
Tvl. Pioneer Cashew Enterprises
Rep. By its Proprietor C.Sivasubramanian
No.80, Varada Muthiappan Street
Chennai – 600 001. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
Rep. By its Secretary
Additional Bench, 2nd Floor, City Civil Court Buildings
High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 004.
2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Presently the Commercial Tax Officer
Mannady (West) Assessment Circle
No.199, Thambu Chetty Street
Chennai – 600 001. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the
records of the first respondent in T.M.P.No.8 of 2012 dated
23.07.2015 and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and
consequently, direct the first respondent to decide the review
application on merits.
For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Karthik
for Mr.K.Soundararajan
For the Respondents : Mr.C.Harsha Raj
Additional Government Pleader
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 8
W.P.No.17068 of 2016
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This writ petition has been filed against the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Chennai in TMP.Nos.10/12, 7/12, 8/12 and 9/12 dated 23.07.2015.
2. The writ petitioner is a dealer in Cashew kernels and was assessed to tax for the Assessment Year 1993-94 and 1994-95 under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 [for brevity, hereinafter referred to as “the TNGST Act”]. Assessment orders were passed, which were appealed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT). Aggrieved over the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), the petitioner/dealer filed an appeal before the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, in respect of the Assessment Year 1992-93, dismissed the appeal and in respect of the Assessment Year 1993-94 and other period of 1994, the orders passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT) was modified by the order dated 13.03.2008.
3. Not satisfied with the said orders, according to the petitioner, since they procured some more documents or materials, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 8 W.P.No.17068 of 2016 which are new facts, which cannot be procured or filed before the original authority or the appellate authority or the Tribunal at the time of disposal, they wanted to file a review application. Therefore, such review application was filed on 29.07.2011, of course, with a delay of 861 days.
4. In order to condone the said delay of 861 days, the petitioner/dealer preferred an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. While dealing with the said application to condone the delay of 861 days, the Tribunal, have gone into the facts that even though under Section 36(6)(a) of the TNGST Act, when the dealer wants to file a review, it should only have been filed on the basis of discovery of new and important facts, which after the exercise of due diligence were not in his knowledge or could not be produced by him when the order was made.
5. When that being the condition precedent for filing the review application, such new facts or documents, which could not be produced by the dealer, should be filed at least before the Tribunal where they filed the petition to seek review of the order passed by the Tribunal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 8 W.P.No.17068 of 2016
6. When that being the position, such new documents that ought to have been filed by the petitioner/dealer, since have not been filed, the same was taken into account by the Tribunal and therefore, the reason given by the petitioner in filing the belated review application by delay of 861 days was not condoned for the simple reason that no such documents procured or said to have been procured by the petitioner/dealer have been filed before the Tribunal.
7. Against the said order only the present writ petition has been filed.
8. Heard Mr.S.Karthik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.K.Soundararajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.
9. Even though under Section 36(6)(b), the Act limits that such review should be filed within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, against which the review is sought under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the delay would be condoned by the Tribunal, provided, if the delay is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 8 W.P.No.17068 of 2016 explained mainly by stating that the delay is caused because of the exercise undertaken by the petitioner/dealer in procuring the fresh materials or additional materials or discovery of new materials or documents.
10. When that being the position, in the absence of any such new documents or discovery of new facts, which are the basis and condition precedent for filing the review application, the delay of 861 days cannot be condoned, which was the reason stated by the Tribunal in rejecting the said application in condoning the delay, of course, rightly.
11. Therefore, we do not find any error in the said approach of the Tribunal in rejecting the plea of the petitioner to condone the delay. Accordingly, the impugned order is to be sustained, hence, the writ petition fails and stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.14555 of 2016 is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J)
14.08.2024
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5 of 8
W.P.No.17068 of 2016
drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6 of 8
W.P.No.17068 of 2016
To:
1. The Secretary
The Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal Additional Bench, 2nd Floor, City Civil Court Buildings High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 004.
2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Presently the Commercial Tax Officer Mannady (West) Assessment Circle No.199, Thambu Chetty Street Chennai – 600 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 8 W.P.No.17068 of 2016 R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND C. SARAVANAN, J.
(drm) W.P.No.17068 of 2016 14.08.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 8